Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @12:09PM
from the looking-sharp dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos asks the question lurking in everyone's mind about Google Glass. 'It's an audacious product for a company no one trusts to behave responsibly with our data: a pair of glasses that can monitor and record the world around you,' he writes. 'But if Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, are we truly to believe that Google will not attempt to abuse that remarkable power?' With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds, 'it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever. And its vision, shared with other California technology companies, is of corporate America redefining societal privacy norms in the service of advertising companies and their clients.' He feels that Google will eventually end up in some sort of court battle over Google Glass and privacy. Do you agree? Does Google Glass deserve extra scrutiny before it hits the market?"

What are they going to do? Limit sales to law enforcement agencies only? Surveillance is only an issue when it's one way, and whatever is recorded can be used against you by the authorities, public and private.

That might happen but I bet it'll be a copyright issue. Some company will force google to add technology that prevents unauthorized (micropayments) recording of a copyrighted song, picture or logo. RFID or QR code would work (as well as any previous copy protection measure in the past) I guess.

No, it deserves scrutiny after it hits the market. Passing judgement before the product is even finalized is just an exercise in fearmongering (how can you judge something when you don't yet know what it does?) and smacks of prior restraint [wikipedia.org].

Then I hope you dont own a phone, a tablet, a PC, or any other eletronic device that could later be updated to do something terrible!

Sorta like arguing we shouldn't pass a law that says it's ok for gay people to get married "because it might later get extended to cover beastialty and people getting married to toads!". It's an absurd argument, you cant actually find something faulty so instead you invent something that 'could' happen and then attack it with that. Better outlaw the car, someone could buy on

It is safe to say there will be downsides to this technology though. Of course, such an observation is obvious: every single thing humans have ever invented have pros and cons. Nuclear weapons, the most destructive power we've got, they prevented wars.

Possible exception: vaccines. I can't see much downsides to them. Idiots being paranoid about their effects aren't worth mentioning, they'd find something to illogically worry about anyway.

Quite possibly true, but not a downside of vaccination, per se, but rather of it's implementation.

The most obvious downside is the eventual removal of certain natural resistances from a population. We don't have to deal with Smallpox any more, but if it got out again, we'd be in big trouble because resistance has been pretty much bred out back down to minimal levels. If some aliens gave us blankets with smallpox on them, we'd go the way of the American Indian in fairly short order.

There are lots of potential downsides to vaccinations. Allergic reactions, failure to immunize, potential for overstimulation of the immune system (more theoretical than real at this point) and others. Vaccination committees spend years discussing the pros and cons of suggesting a particular vaccine be implemented.

The hype about autism and mercury are just the typical Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt response to complicated things that some people don't want to deal with.

Agree, but perhaps they should think things through rather better than their previous attempts, instead of sticking to the "let's push as far as we can, and then see where we get slapped down" approach.

It does to put any foundation at all into your assumption that "I know that it takes photos and videos pretty seamlessly and pretty much all the time."

How exactly do you "know" that a product that hasn't been finalized, yet alone released to the market yet "takes photos and videos . . . pretty much all the time"? You don't. You make an assumption that your fear is reality -- that somehow a device a little bigger than a pen is going to be always-on connected to the internet and constantly recording untold

They have access to soo much data for such a long period of time now.There was the Street View wifi-network thing. But for the rest: very little abuse of power. I'ld say that they are doing a good job. Certainly better than the disasters we've seen from Apple (GPS data collection), Sony PSN (leaked almost everything), Facebook ("It's not a leak, we sold your information").

Correct, Google doesn't "sit around reading people's email". You are also correct in that they "mine users's mail for advertising purposes". If you don't understand the difference you may not belong on Slashdot.

I can opt out of wearing the goggles, so I don't have to be concerned with google pushing ads into my eyeballs. I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces with cameraphones or more traditional video capture devices. Google themselves could pay people to wander around public spaces and collect video, surreptitiously or otherwise.

New technology often makes things which were possible but impractical, practical.

People could wander around with traditional video capture devices, but it would be awkward for them to do so and most real-world attempts to do this would be easy to notice, even if it's theoretically possible that someone could have a little hole in their shirt pocket just for the cellphone camera to peek out of. Google could pay people to collect video, but it would be expensive on a large scale.

Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.

I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces

I totally agree with this point; to me it seems absurd to complain about being recorded in spaces with CCTV's and people everywhere with camera phones already.

The issue I see more is around, you go visit friends or enter other restricted spaces that are not really public, but you are still recording. I feel like in my house I do have an expectation of privacy, should I

Once upon a time, you were able to ask guests to observe certain behavior while in your home. Please take off your shoes, leave your handgun in the car, don't bring recreational drugs into my home... I really don't see what the difference is in asking a guest to not record or even to leave their Google Glasses at home or in the car.

I can opt out of wearing the goggles, so I don't have to be concerned with google pushing ads into my eyeballs. I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces with cameraphones or more traditional video capture devices. Google themselves could pay people to wander around public spaces and collect video, surreptitiously or otherwise.

I don't really get the controversy.

I wouldn't say it is exactly the same as camera phones, it is usually quite noticeable if someone is walking around using it as a camcorder. And they don't all feed into the same centralized Google search engine with facial recognition capability.

It is possible to use various "spy" cameras and techniques, but I would also frown upon people doing this too. But again, they don't all feed into the same massive data-aggregation/tracking engine. And this will never be comparable in volume of use to having a lo

>cough or just pay the building to hang a camera on a wall. It would just blend in with the "security" cameras and you would never know. Also, google goggles is a product that google put out more than a year ago. TFA is written by an idiot.

I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces with cameraphones or more traditional video capture devices.

It is significantly different because most CCTVs and cameraphones aren't feeding everything into a single permanent central database running facial recogniton on every face and recording the time and GPS coordinates. Don't get me wrong, there is a risk of that happening too with CCTVs and the rest, but the issue here is that google glass is already set up to feed everything to Google for a variety of analyses. If even just 1% of the population starts using google glass that may well be sufficient coverage

Google wants us to have ubiquitous fast data transfers!? THE FIENDS! clearly they are interested in capturing images of me in my underwear, all of this "building a better future" is a conspiracy toward that end.

I think the main problem with new technologies like tracking in smartphones (or even the Web in its current form) is that there is practically no way to opt out, because you don't even know who is collecting what information about you in response to any little action you take.

Let's say I want location-aware reminders on my google glass ("you said you wanted Monkey's Uncle Ale, well this store you're walking by has it for $X") OK. Does that mean all reminders I create are mined for shopping-related keywo

What is stopping us from creating a line of clothing and accessories adorned with infrared LEDs? I remember reading an article about a hat a guy made that made his head look like a giant white orb to a video camera. It may certainly draw attention to you to the observer on the screen, but I still think it is a great way to combat the surveillance culture. Now if Google starts putting IR filters on the cameras....

It would be pretty cool to have an IR camera built into Google glass. Being able to see in the dark is pretty nifty. When I watch my son sleep in the crib on my tablet(using the infrared camera mounted in the room) I can see him so clearly, but when I go in there to give him his pacifier, and tuck him back in, I'm blind as a bat. Might be easier to just walk in there holding my tablet to see.

Can't we just call it GGlass for short or something equally unimposing? Somehow the very repetitive nature of "Google Glass" this and "Google Glass" seems that quite disturbing. Gmail, Android, Chrome - people don't refer to these things with the longer moniker anymore. The product is already so ubiquitous it's time to shorten our references to it.

Um, that's a BIT of scaremongering... Did this idiot somehow confuse Google with Facebook? Yes, Google has had some minor screwups (and some, such as the Street View mess, could barely be considered a screwup but more of FUD from clueless users who don't understand that ANYONE can see the MAC address of a wifi AP...), but nothing as major and spectacular as Facebook's routine privacy screwups.

With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds,

Yes Google has been the single worst offender in so many cases dealing with privacy, right? So many, there's no use in giving an actual might as well apply it in the most unclear, inaccurate way.... it has to be like a fuckton of judgements. A metric fuckton. Two metric fucktons. Shame on Google.

Publicly traded corporations which are the worst of all. Shareholders DEMAND evil and while management can resist for a while, they are only human and will not be able to hold their positions against the nature of the beast. Like a Vampire, they may not want to suck the life out of people but the thirst will win out. As soon as they IPO'd google was inherently evil. The thirst is there and it will take hold eventually.

You might feel fine inviting them into your home, but I won't tempt fate.

A good sci-fi book from around 1990. Half the population wore goggles to record perceived violations caused by others (normally older folks recording younger folks). It was a minor point in the book, but it showed a nifty cat-and-mouse game between the observers and those trying to get away with things like littering, graffiti, etc.

I was at GDC last week and while I was in the ( eternally disgusting ) bathroom washing my hands a Googler wearing Google Glass walked in to use the urinal. The urge to say 'Ok glass, take a picture' was hard to resist.

The problem with this technology - if indeed it does feature "always on" data capture - is that it takes just one person in a crowd to ruin it for everyone else.

You are at an event with a large crowd. Some of the behaviour in this crowd may be illegal (concert goers smoking marijuana for example) or at least frowned up by the authorities (dissidents gathering to protest). There is an unwritten rule amongst the participants that no one will film or take photos due to the nature of this group behaviour.

At this point, it takes just one person wearing Google Glass to break the unwritten rule. Most of the participants will be oblivious to the presence of the glasses. Yes this could happen with a handheld camera or similar, but the camera is outwardly very obvious. Goggle Glass is designed to blend in with the wearer and the surroundings.

"Unwritten rule" really? They make cameras now that are so small they can be woven into a coat and you'd never know it's there.

I wasn't referring to targeted covert surveillance. I'm talking about data capture by innocent people wearing Google Glass who are not aware of their actions, with the data being stored in a central location that may be searched later for incriminating behaviour. But this idea seems lost on you, I guess it means you're never doing anything that would warrant attention from the police.

Provide a few key apps, and wearing Google Goggles will be made illegal.

CopWatch Whenever a uniformed police officer or a police car appears, log badge number, faces, location, time, and date. Upload to tracking web site for map overlay. Process face image for face recognition. Match face against other faces seen on any device subscribing to the service. If matching person is in a vehicle, upload license plate info. Add vehicle to tracking list.

BribeWatch Like CopWatch, but for elected officials. Preload system with pictures of elected officials from news media. Also preload with list of all lobbyists registered with Congress (a public record). Record who politicians are seen with. Feed lobbyist location data, contribution data, and vote data into a machine learning algorithm to generate probable cause information for bribery investigations.

I can promise you exactly that will happen, regardless what Google does or does not do. It may take ten years. It may take twenty. It will come.

On the plus side, it will be a powerful means of curbing police abuse, because under the bright lights of a courtroom turning off those cameras will seem suspicious to every jury. Furthermore the police will need to be trained how to handle false-positives in a professional manner, because the magic software will be constantly showing false positives.

On the down side, there are ways to abuse this information. Now is the time to think calmly about safeguards.

it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever.

I'm totally fine with that. Make new shit, put it out there. Might be expensive at first but then it'll be hacked, copied, and democratized.

That attitude... Just really grinds my gears. Rant incoming.

I'm tired of the constant handwringing over EVERYTHING. Everything has to be safe, everything has to be second-guessed, everything has to be politicized, everyone has to be sued, but most importantly everyone has to be SCARED of EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

You can't feed the world because "well, can you PROVE GMOs aren't harmful?!" "Um, you sure can't prove they are, and I think the burden falls on you to..." "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!"

You can't power the world because "Climate change!" "Okay, fair enough, I'll give you that one, CO2 does cause global warming. Let's switch to nuclear." "But can you PROVE it'll never blow up?!" "Well we can design plants that won't release radiation. But fine, how about wind?" "BIRDS!" "Uh, waves?" "FISH!"

I wonder if the first caveman to build a fire had to deal with that crap. "Look, Ugh make fire. Fire good, keep warm!" "Ohhhhhh nooooOOOoooOOOooo no no no put it out it's too hot it might hurt the chiiiiiiiiillldren think of the chiiiiiiildren!"

A decent rant, but let me advocate the devil. The issue becomes one of dubious intent. Caveman didn't invent/discover/harness fire with the express purpose of burning down his neighbors cave, or long term dominance of all cavemankind. With companies like google or montsano, I'm not so certain. In fact, I would be genuinely surprised if someone high up their respective chains of command wasn't steering the engineers in certain directions for explicitly nefarious purposes.

While privacy concerns are there, we've lived in a society where someone sufficiently motivated/funded can obtain a wearable covert recording device for decades.

This levels the playing field, as previously it has been law enforcement, PI's, corporations and spies exploiting the capability. Institutionally controlled cameras are already everywhere. We read stories about how warrants are being dropped as a requirement into cellular/email/online records, and real time access is something governments ask lawmak

Google Glass looks set to invade not only the privacy of the people who wear it, but also of all the people they interact with, including those who may wish to remain relatively anonymous. The wearer will inform the system about what the names of these people are and where to find them (address, phone numbers), while the system will then learn what these people look like and what their habits are. If all this were only used to sell everyone more stuff then that wouldn't be so bad, but the problem is that i

But you don't have to wear it, unless it is forcefully implanted into your eyes.
It's opt in, and you can always chose otherwise.
The problem here is the ones who do opt in create to others around them.

Like mobile phones are opt in. Like the internet is opt in. Like submitting your CV to recruitment agencies in MS Word or even PDF format is opt in.It may get to the point where to be a functioning member of society you "have" to wear them.Hopefully by that stage competition has stepped in and given us other less evil options, but maybe not.

...the personal jammer. I can see it now. "Jams bluetooth, wifi and all cell bands, plus emits infrared sufficient to blind IR cameras. Small enough to fit on your person, self-destructs on command. Order now, get this wide-band audio jammer, free. Or, step up to our 'Don't Tread On Me' personal EMP line. We have models guaranteed to brick any commercial device in ranges from 10 feet to half a mile. (not for sale in USA; not responsible for collateral damage)"

Viola, Instant black market.:)

What's really interesting about this is that both jammers and EMP emitters are relatively trivial to design and aren't tech that can practically be suppressed.

Perhaps privacy will get a second chance, courtesy of Google's attempt at over-reach, or even just their signal that the Orwellian idea is reaching practical application.

One thing is also G Glass is only the first and not much of a first. It is just a slight step in convenience for having the camera at the ready and on. Nearly everyone has a cellphone now.

The thing a surveillance state requires two things. Mass surveillance apparatus and a single large entity behind it. What will end up with more likely is a surveillance or sousveillance society. Where cameras and recording devices are ubiquitous but control over them is not held in any single set of hands.

Until the government asks for it. You have heard of the Patriot Act, right? Or, have you not seen any tv show based on police work in the last 12 years? All cops have to do is ask in most situations, without a warrant, and people automatically give full control of camera footage right over. No, it's not as good as the tv shows say but access to it is pretty much automatic these days.

Seriously, ubiquitous cameras and fear of the police is all that is necessary. Please reference the article on secret compartments for how they instill fear of the police in otherwise reasonably honest citizens.

it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.

Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker

Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker

Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.

most people don't need to know how to jailbreak it. I look a bulletin boards on campus and I can find people advertising that they will flash your phone for you with the latest cyagonmod or jailbreak idevices for a flat rate. Those that don't know how will be able to find someone who do know if they care that much.

I am very big on privacy, but we're developing this culture of "inevitable consumerism" where we view these devices as something we MUST have, MUST use, and MUST take advantage of all the features of, rather than something we can choose to use.

It's true that for many professions having a smartphone or other similar technology is more or less mandatory, but there are other ways to earn a living and you can always "vote" by choosing employers which are not so stringent about connected

Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!"

"Think of the children" is most often a rhetorical shortcut intended to negate rational discussion through appeals to emotion."Think of the privacy implications" is exactly the opposite, in that it is an exhortation to think of problems and address them.

What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*

We all read 1984 and you'd have to be blind not to notice the endless expansion of police surveillance cameras.And go read about the theory behind the panopticon [wikipedia.org], which undoubtedly influenced Orwell.The idea that surveillance = power is hundreds of years old

it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.

Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*

You mean you have skipped all the darker Orwellian surveillance no more privacy sci-fi stories? Because there is quite a lot of them too..;) Problem is, doesn't help if you jailbreak and ad block yours, if you are filmed by all around you, feeding into a facial recognition capable search and tracking engine... But then, it very well might be that technology will make the notion of privacy something we have to forego, Google has already predicted this, but that sure makes some of the other discussions we ha

It's redundant because this is the only thing noh8rz posts about. Note the ten at the end of the username? That's because he is on his tenth account, after the others all had posting limits imposed on them due to merciless - and completely justified - downvotes.

The only thing he posts about is how evil Google is, and how awesome MS is. So yes, it is redundant - if you follow Google stories for longer than a few weeks.

It's sensationalist to think Glass records and streams everything you see to Google. The way I understand it, it only records or takes a photo when you tell it to, and you can be a lot more discrete with a mobile phone camera (pretending to text) if you really want to record people without their permission. With glass you have to announce, out-loud, that you are recording. Labeling it "surveilance" is simply FUD. The device doesn't even have it's own dedicated internet connection. If the government/whoever wants to track you, there are any number of ways without glass, simplest being your phone or credit cards.

Having taught public school, I can guarantee that the amount of stuff already photographed, texted, and batted around from here to there without the pictured's consent is pretty ridiculous, even in a school building. Take a picture of someone's tacky outfit, text it across the building, and then have half the school making fun of them by the end of the day.
I'm pretty sure Verizon could snoop on those pictures if they chose to. And I'm not sure why putting all this into "glasses" form is the part that's

I am pro google simple because of the fact that they openly say they are using your data, its not a hidden fact, its their frickin' business model. They offer their services for free, with relatively unobtrusive advertising.

I am an anti Microsoft because of their monopolistic history, and long time locking businesses to their products.

The two are completely unrelated.

That being said....Google does tend to go too far with a few things(buzz was a big one...), but do you expect a company not to make mistakes?

I have concerns myself, I don't have an account with them, I don't have their products and I block their cookies.

Do you have a friend or family member who has an account? Did you let them take your picture for their address book on their phone?

Shortly after I got my first Android phone, as an experiment, I'd ask my friends if I could take their picture for my address book. Not a one, from tech savvy to total luddite refused, or even thought twice. They just immediately said "sure," smiled, and held still. So then after I'd take the shot, I'd say something along the lines "you know, Google will have all your contact info and a mug shot, you sure it's OK?" Still nobody has ever objected, even after the warning.

I let people take the photo knowing all this full well because I also realize that there is nothing I can do about it if the person wants to put a picture of me with the contact info -- they can use any photo, even a paper one and get that into the address book.

So anyway, blah blah blah -- my point is that no matter how careful you are with your personal information, you have no control over other people. That's why merely having the infrastructure in place, even if you don't actively participate, can be dangerous to privacy.

Hmm, his own bio on his page says "Stephen Fry once referred to him as a "cynical, ignorant [expletive]." Also from his Twitter feed, "/. is paying me and The Kernel is no longer trading." when asked if he should be publishing his articles on The Kernel. BTW, The Kernel is no longer trading because it's no longer a company. So in area of character, I'd say this one is definitely not neutral or unbiased.

As to his article, I can see why other publications like The Guardian considered The Kernel a gossip mag. There is not evidence or foundation in Milo's article. Only the ravings of a man who has shown himself to be firmly against all things big tech. I wouldn't do so far as to affiliate him with MS, I'm sure he hates them too. I will say that, while many people, readers and critics, have spoken of his aptitude with the english language, I found his article to be riddled with hyperbole ("company no one trusts" some of us have no quarrel with Google) and out-right ignorance (Glass is unofficially called Goggles? No.)

As his article appears to have been built to stimulate heated arguments with no enlightenment to be found in it's many words, I will say that he has at least succeeded in this, as I can not find anything else this article succeeds at or any other reason for it's existence. Also, I wouldn't call Milo a "tech journalist" anymore than I'd call a/. commenter a writer.

But I reserve the right to hack into your image recognition software and replace my face with some other image of my choosing, Ghost in the Shell style.

That's truly an interesting concept. You may have the right to record everything around you but I have the right to forcibly alter my own image by gaining access to your systems, encrypted or not. Or perhaps we could extend that to "alter or delete any information about me."